If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Switching to 4-2-2-2?

With the trip to Tenerife coming up should we be switching formations as we are being sussed by teams now.
West Ham and Palace had fast wingers that destroyed our centre backs because our wing backs were 50 feet up the pitch. The funninest thing is Taggart and Bertrand are not even good wingers while Valery is improving for sure.
IMHO the only reason why RH is keeping 5 at the back is because we canít defend set pieces with two powering centre backs in a 4-2-2-2.

I think itís time he starts to sort out this problem as we are reliant on Redmond too much as he is the only half decent offensive player we have right now.

I just don't see this happening. Its a high risk strategy this late in the season and the importance of a settled defence is a big factor.

After Vestergaard went off on Saturday we looked vulnerable although for the first goal I was disappointing that he wasn't more assertive in making the clearing header his, rather than leaving Hojbjerg competing against a taller player.

I'd keep the current setup. Against mobile, more technical teams Yoshida could come in for Vestergaard. Against hoofers there's not much between Stephens and Yoshida, but the latter has more presence.

The problem on Saturday was the lack of Ings, Armstrong and Lemina meaning we lacked the bit of guile, skill and intelligent movement needed to break down a stubborn defence. Even so, we made enough clear chances to have won.

PRetty sure in an interview RH said that playing 352 was more solid but less offensive and 4222 was more offesnive but we left ourselves exposed. Changing formations highlighted that fact on Saturday to be fair.

We can talk about tactics all we want, but at the end of the day we conceded a goal in the 93rd min due to a lack of concentration and general dumbness. That's nothing to do with tactics.

It's just dumb players.

I partly agree with that. That goal should have been avoided, as should many others this sesson. However, the negative team selection was entirely down to RH. A rusty Bertrand and Valery (as good as he was) should not be the attacking width of a team at home to Cardiff in a must win game. We were negative and paid the price for that as much as anything else.

I partly agree with that. That goal should have been avoided, as should many others this sesson. However, the negative team selection was entirely down to RH. A rusty Bertrand and Valery (as good as he was) should not be the attacking width of a team at home to Cardiff in a must win game. We were negative and paid the price for that as much as anything else.

But who else could have provided the attacking width in all honestly?

We are so short of wide players or any general pace in attack, it's criminal really.

We can talk about tactics all we want, but at the end of the day we conceded a goal in the 93rd min due to a lack of concentration and general dumbness. That's nothing to do with tactics.

It's just dumb players.

Conceding like we did in the 93 minute.is frustrating, but the real problem was conceding in the 69th. The problem was Ralph just got the tactics wrong for the game and this is an issue withe the way he sets up against teams that don't want to attack. Poch had the same problem when he was here and had to work out alternative ways of beating such opponents, he got there eventually because we developed our midfield creativity. Sadly Ralph doesn't have the players to develop in this area so I can see us continuing to struggle against bottom teams. Blaming our predicament on individual mistakes doesn't get you anywhere, all players make mistakes, the trick is to ensure that those mistakes aren't costly by scoring enough ourselves. Even Stephens' blunder really should not have cost us, there were many opportunities to regain the possession, indeed Bednarek did actually do so but his poor header gave the ball away almost as badly as Ja k's silly pass. Long time sin e I've seen so much bad play from players as they showed dealing with that error.

We are so short of wide players or any general pace in attack, it's criminal really.

Against Cardiff I'd have played Austin or even Gallagher up top with Long, Redmond left, JWP right. In a 4222 they'd give width and tuck in as necessary. Whilst I don't think Sims is a premier league player, I would have had him or Johnson on the bench to give some width and pace.

Against Cardiff I'd have played Austin or even Gallagher up top with Long, Redmond left, JWP right. In a 4222 they'd give width and tuck in as necessary. Whilst I don't think Sims is a premier league player, I would have had him or Johnson on the bench to give some width and pace.

I agree with you.
Just watch the way Watford play 4-2-2-2 as they have two attacking strikers that look dangerous all the time.
Shame we don’t have those?

In the opening minutes vs Cardiff we were playing 4222. Stephens was playing alongside Romeu rather than as a centre back.

The problem was PEH should have been in that position with a better creative attacking midfielder further forward. Armstrong would have been good, or redmond there with Ings and long/austin/Gallagher upfront. But we don't at the moment have the depth to pull the formation off as we need basically every talented attacking player (and one average player next to ings) fit or we can't make it work. If we have to play a **** player or a defensive player in an attacking role then we might as well just be playing with an extra cb.

The problem was PEH should have been in that position with a better creative attacking midfielder further forward. Armstrong would have been good, or redmond there with Ings and long/austin/Gallagher upfront. But we don't at the moment have the depth to pull the formation off as we need basically every talented attacking player (and one average player next to ings) fit or we can't make it work. If we have to play a **** player or a defensive player in an attacking role then we might as well just be playing with an extra cb.

The problem was PEH should have been in that position with a better creative attacking midfielder further forward. Armstrong would have been good, or redmond there with Ings and long/austin/Gallagher upfront. But we don't at the moment have the depth to pull the formation off as we need basically every talented attacking player (and one average player next to ings) fit or we can't make it work. If we have to play a **** player or a defensive player in an attacking role then we might as well just be playing with an extra cb.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

This is a very good point. However to compound the problem our full backs are too advanced and in particular Valery which leaves our midfield bare with no width and their full backs are then pushed too far back leaving no room for our forwards to make runs in behind. What also happens is our forwards end up coming deep to help the midfield and just to search out the ball which meant that on the odd occasion we did get it wide there was no one in the box to cross to.
The three at the back system requires attacks to be built with full backs giving the midfield width deeper than they are so that you build the run in behind or the overlap.